<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Engagement Without Committment?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/</link>
	<description>Sharing the science behind successful organizations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:04:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: George Guajardo</title>
		<link>http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>George Guajardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/?p=14#comment-8</guid>
		<description>I see what you mean, Tim. No two industries or organizations are alike and employee engagement manifests itself differently in each. However, I am not sure that it is helpful to re-define engagement for each. This leads to mis-communication and general lack of conceptual clarity.

Ultimately, it is not that the phenomenon of engagement changes. What changes is the behaviors it implies and the impact those behaviors will have on each organization. I think if practitioners and academics focus on the variability in these outcomes, decision-makers will have clearer understanding of what we mean and what they can gain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see what you mean, Tim. No two industries or organizations are alike and employee engagement manifests itself differently in each. However, I am not sure that it is helpful to re-define engagement for each. This leads to mis-communication and general lack of conceptual clarity.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it is not that the phenomenon of engagement changes. What changes is the behaviors it implies and the impact those behaviors will have on each organization. I think if practitioners and academics focus on the variability in these outcomes, decision-makers will have clearer understanding of what we mean and what they can gain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Wright</title>
		<link>http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/?p=14#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s my definition of EE: “The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, eagerness, and desire in the work performed. Engagement normally includes ‘involvement’ and ‘commitment’ regarding the organization’s intent and purpose.”	

But let me also take a 90-degree tack on Stephen GIll&#039;s &quot;discretionary.&quot; 

For the sanity of all concerned--especially those of us who support business&#039;s EE--a standard definition is necessary. However, for the sake of every individual company (entrepreneur, small, medium or large corporation) that definition must have discretionary flexibility. The auto parts manufacturer views employee engagement through a quite different lens than the 5-physicians dermatology practice. 

Our definition should offer general categories to guide separate companies in sculpting their specific (and so,more meaningful) meaning of EE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s my definition of EE: “The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, eagerness, and desire in the work performed. Engagement normally includes ‘involvement’ and ‘commitment’ regarding the organization’s intent and purpose.”	</p>
<p>But let me also take a 90-degree tack on Stephen GIll&#8217;s &#8220;discretionary.&#8221; </p>
<p>For the sanity of all concerned&#8211;especially those of us who support business&#8217;s EE&#8211;a standard definition is necessary. However, for the sake of every individual company (entrepreneur, small, medium or large corporation) that definition must have discretionary flexibility. The auto parts manufacturer views employee engagement through a quite different lens than the 5-physicians dermatology practice. </p>
<p>Our definition should offer general categories to guide separate companies in sculpting their specific (and so,more meaningful) meaning of EE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Guajardo</title>
		<link>http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>George Guajardo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/?p=14#comment-6</guid>
		<description>Stephen, You are totally right about discretionary effort. Many of the engagement assessments I have seen include at least one item about discretionary effort. This is one of the constructs that businesses care most about where engagement is concerned. However, i wonder just how different it is from general OCB.

By the way, thanks for recommending employeeengagement.ning. As it happens, I am already a member =)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen, You are totally right about discretionary effort. Many of the engagement assessments I have seen include at least one item about discretionary effort. This is one of the constructs that businesses care most about where engagement is concerned. However, i wonder just how different it is from general OCB.</p>
<p>By the way, thanks for recommending employeeengagement.ning. As it happens, I am already a member =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen J. Gill</title>
		<link>http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/engagement-without-committment/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen J. Gill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:03:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/?p=14#comment-5</guid>
		<description>I agree; we need a common definition of employee engagement. In addition to the dimensions you mention in this blog post, some people talk about &quot;discretionary effort&quot;. This is when employees are willing to go the extra mile for the organization. Some surveys of employee engagement include this dimension in their questions. A good source for discussions about the definition of employee engagement is http://employeeengagement.ning.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree; we need a common definition of employee engagement. In addition to the dimensions you mention in this blog post, some people talk about &#8220;discretionary effort&#8221;. This is when employees are willing to go the extra mile for the organization. Some surveys of employee engagement include this dimension in their questions. A good source for discussions about the definition of employee engagement is <a href="http://employeeengagement.ning.com/" rel="nofollow">http://employeeengagement.ning.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
